majnemer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D22034#475002, @DmitryPolukhin wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D22034#474985, @majnemer wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D22034#474937, @DmitryPolukhin wrote: > > > > > David, do you know real programs that relay on constexpr and dllexport > > > semantic that doesn't work on MSVC? > > > > > > Yes, Chrome relied on these semantics. > > > Hm, does it mean that Chrome has some workaround to bypass that MSVC doesn't > support it? Not an explicit workaround, other MSVC bugs prevent them from miscompiling the exact sequence used in Chrome. > > > > > Anyway current implementation is not compatible with MSVC in much more > > > common case without constexp. > > > > > > > > > I don't see how it is not compatible. The address of the vftable is not > > observable as far as I know... > > > You can easily observe the difference if vftable is exported from DLL but > some virtual functions are not (for example, private). MSVC will uses > imported vftable and Clang will try to rebuild fvtable that will fail on link > time. Wait, can you give an example of MSVC exporting a vftable but not all the virtual methods (other than the deleting destructor)? I don't believe I've ever come across an example of this. http://reviews.llvm.org/D22034 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
